Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Burka ban

1…2728303233…138

Comments

  • #872
    goingpostal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 858 ✭✭✭goingpostal


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    When things of a religious nature are banned it usually makes them stronger.
    As I have already stated I have no love for burkas or anything whatsoever to do with religion.
    Ban such a thing and you entrench the idea that it is something to fight for.
    If catholicism was not banned here for many years we would probably be living in a more secular society than we are now.
    This is the kind of thing that time and the fact that the younger generation don't always follow their parents "ideas" will change.
    Ban it and you give that generation something to rebel against.

    We banned the religious burning of women as witches. We banned the religious torture and murder of heretics. We banned pogroms against minority religions because their beliefs offended us. We banned throwing Christians to the lions. We banned the persecution of scientists who developed theories that contradicted religious fairytales. I don't see too many religious believers clinging to those past religious practices. Your argument doesn't hold up. Its called progress.


  • #873
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    I'm religious and support the ban
    goingpostal wrote: »
    And I find your previously expressed idea that we all have a right to go around concealing our faces from each other, "within reason", absurd and indefinable not to mention indefensible. Every other example of facial concealment that I can think of is associated with criminality, e.g., highway robbers, paramilitaries, bank robbers.


    If I want to cover my face I can.
    If you want to see it you can't.

    If you don't like this fact, take it up with your local TD.


  • #874
    goingpostal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 858 ✭✭✭goingpostal


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    If I want to cover my face I can.
    If you want to see it you can't.

    If you don't like this fact, take it up with your local TD.

    Try doing that the next time you walk into a bank, a shop, a petrol station, a doctors surgery, any public place where money changes hands, in fact, any public place where people congregate. At the very least you will garner some very justified stares of deep suspicion from your fellow primates. And you might very well need the help of a competent solicitor after your adventure as Dick Turpin. Good luck trying to assert that particular "right". Or you could always claim that you are adhering to some esoteric, backward, tribal belief and that God told you to cover your face.


  • #875
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #876
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #877
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    I'm religious and support the ban
    goingpostal wrote: »
    Try doing that the next time you walk into a bank, a shop, a petrol station, a doctors surgery, any public place where money changes hands, in fact, any public place where people congregate. At the very least you will garner some very justified stares of deep suspicion from your fellow primates. And you might very well need the help of a competent solicitor after your adventure as Dick Turpin. Good luck trying to assert that particular "right". Or you could always claim that you are adhering to some esoteric, backward, tribal belief and that God told you to cover your face.



    Once more and for the last time. SCARF ON THE STREET Ok??
    You do not, as you stated earlier have the "right" to see the face of every citizen.

    I am now going to Ignore any more of your posts because this type of irrationality is quite tedious.
    Good night.:rolleyes:


  • #878
    condra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,852 ✭✭✭condra


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Morbert wrote: »
    It is obvious that we disagree over whether or not the burqa is harmful.
    Incorrect. I also think the burka is harmful. I also think cigarettes are harmfull, and I smoke about 15 a day.
    ...the post was a parody of those who label the 'pro-ban' side as anti-islam or anti-freedom
    We got that. :rolleyes:
    It is blatantly obvious that a burqa is not on par with mutilating infants.
    I'm listening.....
    It is also blatantly obvious that people who support the ban do not do so for oppressive or islamophobic reasons.
    This point is in my opinion either extremely naive, or cunningly disingenuous.
    It is well established that the Burqa is a misogynistic invention used to exert control over women. I really can't see how it can be argued otherwise.
    I agree for the most part, but I didn't see anyone arguing the contrary.

    Nobody opposed to a ban has claimed that life as a muslim woman is all daisys and roses.
    So I would wonder if anyone would answer this question: Given what we know today about both male and female sexuality, why is it that the burqa is not worn by men as well as women?
    Because in Muslim culture, religion and society, women are usually second class citizens.

    I find it difficult to be tolerant of that too, but I don't think we should fight oppression with oppression.

    I would like to see Muslim women make progress themselves, then again, in my 30 years in Ireland, I've only seen about 2 women in burkas. Plenty of Niqabs though. They don't bother me at all.

    ___
    goingpostal wrote: »
    We banned the religious burning of women as witches. We banned the religious torture and murder of heretics. We banned pogroms against minority religions because their beliefs offended us. We banned throwing Christians to the lions. We banned the persecution of scientists who developed theories that contradicted religious fairytales. I don't see too many religious believers clinging to those past religious practices.

    I think this is a fair point. I'm not against creating legislation which abolishes the most barbaric religious practices, and the Burka is right on the line for me.

    Still, as I said above, I've only ever seen about 2 women in full burkas in Ireland. A burka ban here would be more of a token insult to the Muslim people of Ireland. How many are there? About 100,000?


  • #879
    Surmonter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6 ✭Surmonter


    I'm religious and support the ban
    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban. Although the more I argue against it I see the other side.

    The reason being, I think it infringes with freedom of expression. It would be an insult to many Muslim people, and their numbers shouldn't sway your opinion. Just because there is not a lot of gay people, does that mean it would be okay to say, "Well, there isn't a lot of them, might as well just ban gay sex." If it infringes the right of a someone, even if it's just one person, it should not be passed.

    Women can choose to leave the religion. They can choose to not wear it. Even though it is hard to do so.


  • #880
    sonicthebadger*
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 446 ✭✭sonicthebadger*


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    condra wrote: »
    I'm looking, I'm looking!


    Security concerns are legitimate. I'm not sure on what the current policy is with regard to burkas in banks, but if anyone, is allowed to wear a burka in a bank, I am opposed to this. This is different from an outright ban though.


    Apparently you do.


    What are you being asked to DO that Muslims are not? Restrain from wearing a burka? If you really want to get a sex change and convert to Islam, you won't hear any objection from me.

    __



    Facetious and tasteless. Nobody would make such a point, and there is a huge difference between wearing a burka and mutilating a child.

    I am being asked so show my face at times when it is inconvenient, which I have to do. I don't need a sex change for that. Why would I need a sex change for that? For me it's not a religious thing, specifically banning a single item of clothing is silly. A law which says you should show your face in public if you are asked to do so is not.

    If your religion says you have to wear bermuda shorts and canary yellow shirts with stilts and a giant paper hat with lights on, as I said before, I really don't care. But if you want everyone to start changing the heights of doors so you can get into buildings... sorry, no.

    Let me do to you what you're doing to me. You're a mysoginist who wants to keep all women oppressed because their freedom to live their own lives makes you insecure. So your opinions have less value. Just admit you hate women and we can carry on with this discussion.

    So just to cover your last point again, I know it's causing you difficulty. I'M BEING ASKED TO SHOW MY FACE IN PUBLIC!


  • #881
    sonicthebadger*
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 446 ✭✭sonicthebadger*


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    Next winter when you walk around the streets during a cold spell and see someone with a scarf covering their face, think of this thread, walk up to them and try exercising your "right" to see their face. Just be very carefull doing it.
    I can absolutely guarantee you if an altercation ensues, you will be arrested or cautioned for harassment by a member of the garda siochana.
    Lets get real folks!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Try refusing to show your face to a cop. You'll be getting a one way ticket to the nearest station until you can be identified. And rightly so.
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    If I want to cover my face I can.
    If you want to see it you can't.

    If you don't like this fact, take it up with your local TD.

    I'd rather not see your face, cause you're clearly very rude. But aside from that, see above.
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    Once more and for the last time. SCARF ON THE STREET Ok??
    You do not, as you stated earlier have the "right" to see the face of every citizen.

    I am now going to Ignore any more of your posts because this type of irrationality is quite tedious.
    Good night.:rolleyes:

    Scarf on the street fine! Veil on the street, fine! Big tin foil hat on the street fine! But take it off when you're asked to. Or you're acting like a jerk.

    I am now going to Ignore any more of your posts because this type of irrationality is quite tedious.
    Good night.:rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #882
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Deep breaths, people. Deep breaths. :)


  • #883
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    I'm religious and support the ban
    sonicthebadger* wrote: »
    Try refusing to show your face to a cop. You'll be getting a one way ticket to the nearest station until you can be identified. And rightly so.

    Who's talking about refusing to show face to a cop ?
    I'd rather not see your face, cause you're clearly very rude. But aside from that, see above.

    Just stating the facts to someone who has a strange delusion.
    Scarf on the street fine! Veil on the street, fine! Big tin foil hat on the street fine! But take it off when you're asked to. Or you're acting like a jerk.

    The jerk would be any person who demands to see my face because they believe they have a right to. (and I'm not talking about cops, banks etc).
    I am now going to Ignore any more of your posts because this type of irrationality is quite tedious.
    Good night.

    Plagiarism at its best :)


  • #884
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    I will fight -- and I choose my words here carefully -- to the death to preserve the right for as many chicks as possible to wear boob tubes, wonderbras, lowcut tops and, especially, hot pants. I draw the line firmly at orange face-paint though.

    Out of interest, do you find, say, the legislation on blackmail:

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0017.html#zza2y1994s17

    an offense against the freedom to choose to pay a blackmailer?


  • #885
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    Out of interest, do you find, say, the legislation on blackmail:

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0017.html#zza2y1994s17

    an offense against the freedom to choose to pay a blackmailer?
    Of course. Mainly it is an offense against the freedom of speech for the blackmailer. It may not be pretty but it's a fair trade and if one deems the information worth staying under raps then one will pay. Freedom of speech, in my opinion, should be consistently applied, even in cases of blackmail. That is the only issue involved in a case of blackmail even though I'm sure I'll hear otherwise. Another startling contradiction is that by the same logic for criminalising blackmailers, one should really criminalise gossiping, which is even worse because they reveal the secret without any warning or even a chance to pay to keep it hidden.


  • #886
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Valmont wrote: »
    one should really criminalise gossiping
    Defamation, aka libel (printed) and slander (spoken), is already a criminal offense in Ireland, as it is in most countries:

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0040/index.html


  • #887
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 53,112 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    I'm religious and support the ban
    are slander and libel usually applied to incorrect info being published or disseminated, whereas blackmail can involve information which is correct?


  • #888
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    Defamation, aka libel (printed) and slander (spoken), is already a criminal offense in Ireland, as it is in most countries:

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0040/index.html
    That only applies to lies and/or innaccurate statements. Being able to prove that one's gossip is completely true would absolve one from criminal charges, right?


  • #889
    johnfás
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,344 ✭✭✭johnfás


    robindch wrote: »
    Defamation, aka libel (printed) and slander (spoken), is already a criminal offense in Ireland, as it is in most countries:

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0040/index.html

    Just on a point of information, the Defamation Act 1961 has been repealed by the Defamation Act 2009. Slander was actually a defamation in tansient form. While traditionally that meant that spoken defamation was slanderous, that was not necessarily the case in recent years. For example, a spoken word which is recorded on a tape or broadcast on the television was libelous, not slanderous. In any case, the distinction between libel and slander has been abolished under the 2090 Act. Furthermore, defamation is a civil wrong (a tort) not a criminal offence. One's remedy is in damages, not criminal sanction.


  • #890
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    magicbastarder wrote: »
    are slander and libel usually applied to incorrect info being published or disseminated, whereas blackmail can involve information which is correct?
    Blackmail can involve false information too. Or it can be a mafia-style protection racket. It's all up to the imagination of the blackmailer.

    The issue here is whether it's reasonable to view the subtle or unsubtle direct or implied threats made by one individual or group against another as unacceptable limitation on the concept of "free speech". And whether it's an unacceptable limitation of the freedom of the blackmailee for the state to try to prevent possible blakmailees from being able to "freely choose" to accept the blackmailer's offer.


  • #891
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    johnfás wrote: »
    Jthe Defamation Act 1961 has been repealed by the Defamation Act 2009.
    Oops -- I hadn't realized that the 1961 act had been fully repealed -- around these parts, we just concentrated on the blasphemy provisions in the 2009 Act :o


  • Advertisement
  • #892
    johnfás
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,344 ✭✭✭johnfás


    What is your argument regarding blackmail, robindch? Blackmail can potentially arise in respect of any activity, legal or otherwise. For example, I could blackmail you into attending the posting on the Boards.ie Atheism and Agnositicism forum - though posting on the forum is not in itself illegal.

    I'm not sure how you relate this back to a Burka ban though... a woman could rely on the law relating to blackmail to have her husband (or anybody else) charged if she was forced to wear a Burka against her will, irrespective of the legality of such dress. There are a number of other potential charges which would likely also arise in such a circumstance.


  • #893
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #894
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    johnfás wrote: »
    What is your argument regarding blackmail
    It's like I said above -- whether it's improper of the state to legislate against blackmail, either by making the act of blackmailing somebody illegal (as it has done) and the position on the receiving side, of whether or not it's right and proper that people, having received a blackmail threat, should be "free" to accept it.

    I understand that the law generally takes the view that if somebody's subject to blackmail, then any actions or transactions that they carry out while subject to it are not "free" and may be reversed.

    Hence the question -- is this position not an denial of the blackmailee's right to make what a libertarian would view as a free choice?


  • #895
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    No relation at all.

    Defamation only arose in reponse to Valmont's point that if a state was going to make blackmail illegal, then it should make malicious gossip illegal too. I pointed out that the state already has.


  • #896
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    goingpostal wrote: »
    We banned the religious burning of women as witches. We banned the religious torture and murder of heretics. We banned pogroms against minority religions because their beliefs offended us. We banned throwing Christians to the lions. We banned the persecution of scientists who developed theories that contradicted religious fairytales. I don't see too many religious believers clinging to those past religious practices. Your argument doesn't hold up. Its called progress.

    I've said it before ad I'll say it again; you CANNOT compare burning some-one alive or mutiliating some-one or ethinic cleansing to the wearing of a Burkha. it is not even remotely the same and I wish people would stop making that argument because it just doesn't work.

    In no way, that I can see and do correct me if I'm wrong, is the Burkha a danger to anyone.

    Do those arguing for the ban realise that it might actually deny women's rights and harm them even further. Supposing a particularly devout Muslim man learns his wife is no longer allowed to wear it and decides that instead he is going to lock her away in her room.....is that ok since at least her face is showing? Or what if he gets violent towards her because she won't wear it, although it's for legal reasons?


  • #897
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #898
    sonicthebadger*
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 446 ✭✭sonicthebadger*


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    So don't tell you any secrets then wha? ;)


  • #899
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Forgive my ignorance on the subject, does the libertarians philosophy specifically state physical harm and not emotional harm?


  • #900
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #901
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    magicbastarder wrote: »
    there seems to be a distinct failure to separate attitudes to the burka from the burka itself.
    it's like trying to reduce rape by banning women from dressing 'provocatively'.
    Yeah. Banning woman from dressing provocatively to prevent rape would be kind of stupid. Next thing you know people would be forcing there woman to dress in some kind of garment that completely covered them from head to toe and meant no part of there body was visible. I mean seriously, how stupid would that be? That would be ... oh... hold on...

    MrP


Advertisement